This blog is written by the National Director of Together For Humanity Foundation (TFH), Rabbi Zalman Kastel. It explores contemporary social issues as these relate to an Orthodox understanding of the Torah, (the Bible) and other Jewish sources. This blog which shares the personal thoughts and journey of an Australian Jewish man is part of the bridge building work of TFH and is written for readers of many faiths and none. It often references the Sidra, the weekly Torah reading.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Recently I
attended a Muslim event. We were treated to performances of poetry and a
combination of storytelling, song and music. One story about the forbearance of
the prophet Mohammed included a Jew insulting and falsely accusing the
prophet.On Saturday afternoon I lead a Torah
discussion group about the Sidra (reading) of the week and drew attention to
the verse and associated commentary about a non-Jewish female slave that I
found quite uncomfortable reading. This blog post is an exploration of the way
religious leaders or teachers select texts or stories to tell that may lead
people to problematic conclusions. Should there never be self- censorship? Is contextualizing enough? This is far from a complete examination of
discrimination in either Jewish or Islamic texts or the issue of responsible
leadership. Instead, it is an attempt to shed some light on the issues by examining
my own experiences over the past few days.

The Story

A young
Sheikh named Omar, told a story that essentially went as follows: A Jewish
convert to Islam named Abdullah once entered a Mosque and saw another Jewish
man named Zaid sitting among Muslims. Zaid explained to Abdullah that "that
I knew from reading my scriptures that we expected a Prophet and the
characteristics of this prophet. I noticed all the attributes in the Prophet
Mohammed except for one: forbearance. I decided to test him”.

Zaid
approached the Prophet Mohammed and offered him a loan, which the prophet
accepted and agreed to repay the load in dates. Three days before the load was
due for repayment Zaid walked up to the prophet as he was surrounded by his
companions and many people. He made derogatory statements about the tribe of
the prophet, accusing them of being dishonest and stealing the wealth of others
and made accusations relating to the failure to repay the loan.

Umar, a
companion of the prophet was outraged and drew his sword. But the Prophet
Mohammed stopped Umar and insisted that Zaid be talked to about dealing with
issues using honourable speech and noting that there were still three days left
under the terms of the loan. In spite of this the Prophet instructed Umar to immediately
give Zaid 1½ times the original amount of dates. This was to compensate Zaid
for the trauma of being threatened by Umar.

Making
sense of the story

Listening to
the story, I first took it at face value, a story about the virtue of patience.
It echoed, for me, a Talmudic story about how the patience of the sage Hillel
was tested by a man pestering him with inane questions to win a bet that he
could make Hillel angry[i].
Yet, it also struck me that the two Jews in the story both converted to Islam,
which made me just a little uncomfortable. In subsequent conversations about
the story, some people commented about the portrayal of the Jew in the story as
disrespectful to the prophet and money driven or being cast in the role of the
villain.

A key strategy
for positive inter-group relations is curiosity. Yishai Shaliff taught me the
concept of asking from “a place of not knowing[ii]”
which is essentially about asking open question without any implicit
assumptions. I asked Sheikh Omar to tell me more about this story.He shared with me that this was the first
Hadith he learned as a child. But when he first heard it, it was missing both
the beginning and the end and seemed to be just about the loyalty of Umar to the
Prophet. On a trip to a small village with many devout descendants of the
prophet in Yemen, Omar was thrilled to discover the full story. For him this
story is about the importance of non-violence and calm responses to
provocation. We also found common ground in discussing the laws against taking
interest in both our traditions. I wonder how the prophet was allowed to give
Zaid the extra 50%? In Jewish law, even being more social with the lender could
be construed as interest[iii].
Sheikh Omar told me that this was the very same question he wondered about when
first hearing the story but concluding that the additional 50% was a separate
transaction to the loan itself.

I can relate
to Sheikh Omar’s excitement about uncovering a fuller understanding of a sacred
story or text, especially as this leads to a rich practical message about
non-violent responses to provocation.Still,
I wonder about whether young people who attend Sheik Omar’s classes who hear this
story, will also get an unintended message that Jews might be worthy of the
noble prophet’s patience but are also the ones who might insult the Prophet.

Laws
related to Discrimination in the Torah reading

In seeking
to understand the other, it is important to reflect on ourselves and our own frame
of reference. Returning to my own text, our reading this week is emphatic in the
prohibition of discrimination against the stranger[iv].
“And you shall not mistreat a stranger, nor shall
you oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. And again: “And you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the
feelings of the stranger, since you were strangers in the land of Egypt”.
The second verse seems to be an appeal to empathy, you know “how hard it is
(for the stranger) when he is mistreated[v]”. These instructions are related to the issue of power and
powerlessness[vi] and the moral imperative of treating the powerless newcomer
well, never abusing the power imbalance. It also reflects a need for
sensitivity to the suffering of dislocation experienced by a stranger far from
friends and home[vii].

One of the most difficult theoretical aspects of Jewish law
comes up in the same reading. I say,
theoretical because these laws have not been practiced for some two thousand
years. Most of the commentary was written over a thousand years after the
practice was abolished. Yet it remains part of our tradition. The Torah tells
us something about the treatment of a Non-Jewish Slave Woman, but she is not
the subject of the verse but rather one whose fate is secondary. This is a
discussion about a Jewish slave, the Torah tells us that “If his master
gives him a woman/wife[ix](?), and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and
her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone[x]”. The “woman” is a Canaanite (non-Jewish) slave
woman, who is “given” to the Jewish slave for a period of six years but when
her partner goes free she and their children remain behind as property of their
owner.

The relationship between this slave woman and the Jewish male
slave is centred on the production of slave children[xi].This relationship is
only permitted if the Jewish male slave is already married[xii] ‘because his soul is already attached with his love
toward his Jewish wife’ but if he is not already married we need to worry
that he will become attached to his Cananite slave partner[xiii]”. The quality of their relationship does not seem to matter
at all. The master is allowed to compel the union between the slaves if it is
against the wishes of the male slave[xiv](I have not found
anything written that is explicit about requiring her consent[xv]).There is no requirement
for this sexual union to become a marriage between the slaves. ‘The Jewish slave should not be separated by
his master from his Jewish wife to be required to become one with and sleep
with the Canaanite slave instead of his Jewish wife, but the Jewish male slave
does have discretion in this matter[xvi]’. The only restriction is that this slave woman cannot be
“given” to two slaves at a time[xvii]. Perhaps somewhat reassuringly, the Torah text itself, as
opposed to the commentary, does envision that the two slaves might come to love
each other to the point that in some case the Jewish slave would be prepared to
continue to be a slave because he declares “I love my (Canaanite slave) wife
and my children[xviii]”.

Conclusion

When I think
about this text, I have no neat way to explain it away. It says what it says.
While it is convenient that this all theoretical and is no longer practiced and
has not been practiced for thousand years, the more important point for me is
that the total moral message of Judaism is one of human dignity and embracing
all human beings. Yet, there is the danger that other Jews will take these
Jewish teachings as legitimising prejudicial attitudes. As a Rabbi and a Jewish
educator this is something I am concerned about. Since Saturday, I have been
thinking about this a lot, consulting a trusted colleague and asking
participants in the Saturday discussion group what their conclusions were. Not
one participant got the message that racism is ok. Our youngest participant
merely thought “it was weird”. While I despise censorship by religious leaders,
deciding what part of the tradition the masses can be trusted with, I am still
grappling with the merit of highlighting the most difficult passages. This is
one reason I have delayed publishing this article till now.

When it
comes to the texts of others there needs to be a genuine curiosity to learn
what these mean for those who follow those texts. This is what I did with my
conversation with Omar in which I was moved by what this story means to him. I
also think it is legitimate for Jews or anyone to be concerned about the ways
negative portrayals of minorities in the sacred texts of faiths other than
one’s own might be understood and applied. This needs to be handled with care. I
am not sure about the best way to approach an Inter-faith discussion with him
about this, in which I show respect for the sacredness of this story for him
while also exploring possible misuse of the story. I trust that with good will, a bit of skill,
sincerity and openness we can have a fruitful discussion.

[iv]
Exodus 22:20, and Exodus 23:9, this translation is from chabad.org. There are traditional sources that interpret the Hebrew word
Ger, which literally means stranger, as convert and focus their commentary on
the particular situation of a convert, the commentary cited above relates as
much to a newcomer to a religious community as it would to any marginalised
person.

Friday, February 1, 2013

I was inspired and spiritually nourished this weekend at an Anabaptist
conference/retreat. This is not a sentiment I would have dreamed, just a few
ago, that I would ever write. In this post I reflect on the possibility of deep
Christian-Jewish spiritual connection and conversation, my experience at the
conference and how this relates to my own traditions particularly in the
reading this week which includes the Ten Commandments. One obvious question
relates to Christians beliefs about God and Jesus. I deliberately start with
other matters, before addressing this.

The non-negotiable worth of every human being

At the conference the Multi-Faith panel was asked a question about condoning
sin.Dave Andrews, a Christian Panelist, told a story about traveling to Cambodia and seeing sex tourists
there for the purpose of exploiting young local girls and his anger about this.
He felt like taking an AK47 and shooting them all. When he arrived back in
Australia a woman asked him to counsel her husband who was one of these sex
tourists. For Dave this was a terrible predicament, how could he empathize with
someone toward whom he felt disgust and outrage. Yet as a Christian he felt he
must be there for this man. After much prayer and internal struggle to be true
to the teachings of his faith and the example of Jesus he was able to care
about him and hear his story. In the end this man who seemed repulsive told Dave
his own story about how he was abused as a child, hates himself for what he was
doing in Cambodia and was very eager for therapy to help him stop, which he
went on to pursue.

This story has many levels and it is beyond the scope of this “blog
post” to explore the terrible problem of sexual abuse itself and the proper
responses to it. I was simply moved by Dave’s living out his Christian faith in
his compassion for a person he found it very hard to look at, never mind love.

The idea of the worth of every person is not unique to one faith. if I were faced with a dilemma with a bad
person, my response to it would not be thinking about tax collectors and
lepers; I think I would instead draw on
Beruria’s principle that “it is written may sins be destroyed [i]-
rather than the sinner[ii]”.
The context of Beruria’s statement was a problem with a group of thugs in her neighborhood which caused her husband, Rabbi Meir, a great deal of trouble.
Rabbi Meir prayed that they should die. His wife Beruria persuaded him to differentiate
between sins and sinners and pray for the elimination of the former. Her
husband did pray for them, and they repented.

In our reading this week there is further inspiration to be drawn from the order
of the Ten Commandments which is seen as significant. Five commandments were on
each of the two tablets, this means that number 1, “I am Y-K-V-K[iii]
your God…” appears next to commandment #6, thou shalt not murder, because
these two commandments are linked, to suggest that “spilling blood” is an
offense against God himself just as smashing the statutes of a king or
destroying his coins might be[iv].
This can be seen in the language of the Torah “One who spills blood…because
in the image of God, He made man[v]”.
Applied more broadly it is about the intrinsic non-negotiable value of every
human being. Dave’s showing love to this man resonated for me because it echoed
compassionate teachings in my own tradition but I was also moved by the power
of his own beliefs and stories playing out in his heroic struggle.

A Farbrengen with Christians

After the formal session I sat down at an outdoor table next to Dave
Andrews. He is a man with a medium length white beard and very long hair, big
glasses and a giant spirit. Slowly, we were joined by one man, then another,
and another; eventually first one woman then a second also joined our
previously all-male circle. The dynamic was similar to when an elder Chasid
would sit down with a few others to tell stories and reflect, they would
attract younger Chasidim around them to drink in the words and the spirit. There
was usually some vodka on the table, which would be sipped with the word
“Lchaim” to life and good wishes. This kind of gathering is what Chasidim call
a Farbrengen. The difference was that this time the elder Chasid was not Jewish
- he described himself as a follower of
Jesus.

Do Not “Murder”, killing on the other hand…

Dave wanted to know what the biggest dividing element between us was.
It was a stream of consciousness kind of discussion rather than a formal debate
or lecture. I reflected that the insistence on non-violence was a sticking
point for me. The sixth commandment is often translated as “thou shalt not
kill”. Yet the Hebrew words לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirtzaḥ, are more accurately
translated as thou shalt not murder. In
my tradition, despite the great value place on peace, violence is sometimes justified in the pursuit of justice
and its defense. While I appreciate the radical transformational potential of
an insistence of the sacredness and dignity of all people, I struggle with the
idea that the allied soldiers who defeated Hitler could be seen as sinful. It
also condemns Israelis regardless of how they might fight, even in situations
where they are found to be acting absolutely in self-defense.Dave was particularly surprised by my answer.
Was it not the idea of a man being God that would be the biggest problem?

Polytheism and the Jesus of Jarrod

Christian beliefs about the divinity of Jesus are a barrier for me. The
idea of God incarnated as a human being does not sit well with my idea of what
God is and I do not agree with it. Yet it is a known difference and one that
for me is not a very important issue.

There is a Jewish authority that ruled that Christianity is not
considered idol worship for a non-Jew because it recognises God. There are various
teaching in Judaism that explore divine expression that go beyond the formula
of the one invisible, indescribable, omnipresent, omnipotent creator God. We
have Kabalistic teachings about divine expressions in human-like emotions such
as kindness or (the drive to)
victory.We are taught
that the Shechinah spoke through the throat of Moses[vi]. The Soul that God blew into Adam is believed to be a part of God
himself[vii]. For me the nature of God is mysterious. When I approach God in
prayer, I am talking to the “God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” as they understood Him, but
I am also talking to“the God of my Fathers[viii]”), which to me includes God as understood by my German-culture-loving
great grandfather Dr. Armin, my Slovak-shopkeeper-great- great grandfather
Aaron, my Torah- focused-scholar grandfather, Rabbi Moshe Yehuda, my devout
American mother and my father ; all
these differ. Mostly I try to pray according to “the mind of the young child[ix]”, suspending all speculation.

My greater problem with idol worship is when it leads us away from God
and his demands of us, quite the opposite of what I witnessed at the
conference. I see in people like Dave and my friend Jarrod McKenna a different
Jesus, a Rebbe-like figure who calls them to compassion and struggle.

The second commandment states: There should not be for you, other
gods[x]...”
In Hebrew the words Lo Yi-hih-yeh, that mean there should not be, is a singular
form, yet the instruction is about many Gods so it should really say Lo
Yi-Hih-Yu, (plural). This suggests that Idol worship draws the worshipper in,
even if at first the intention was to have one idol, in the end s/he will
worship many[xi]. This
reminds me of the comment by a psychiatrist, obviously not very impressed with
self-help books, that you will never find just one self-help book on someone’s
shelf, there will always be many, presumably because they all hold out the
false promise of some great relief to life’s challenges but in the end don’t
satisfy the reader who goes on to seek a fix elsewhere. I am sure this is not
the case for all readers of these books, but I think there is a common thread
about seeking escape from the anxiety caused by uncertainty in something
concrete that we can hold or read and feel like we have something to hold on
to. Similarly, idol worship is worst when it leads us away from the challenge
to which God calls us.

Supersession vs Neighbourliness and Collegiality

I asked participants at the conference whether they believed that
Judaism had been superseded by Christianity, in the way that a 386 computer is
essentially obsolete because we now have faster, better machines. There was
some thoughtful discussion about this. I think the key was that they were most
interested in the teachings of Jesus as one prophetic teacher and inspiring
figure alongside Moses or others rather than the founder of a new religion or
brand to compete with “Brand Judaism”. While we are all interested in truth,
the focus is more on how we live truthfully than how to assert truth claims
over other claims. Quite different to the sorting approach of sifting through
falsehood to find the Truth that is reflected in our Torah reading where we
read about Jethro exploring all known forms of worship known in his time to
reject them all and convert to Judaism[xii].
More like an argument between fellow Chasidim about whose Rebbe is the true
Messiah and which teachings are most worth following. Whatever the case might
be about supersessionism elsewhere, on Sunday I felt completely at home,
accepted as a fellow seeker of God’s way to peace and neighbourliness. Lchaim,
to life.

About Me

I am active in educational efforts to counter prejudice, particularly when linked to religion, as National Director of Together For Humanity Foundation. I am also a Rabbi, teaching Bar Mitzvah students, adults, conducting weddings and involved in other aspects religious leadership. I was ordained with Semicha from the Lubavitch Yeshiva (770) in New York, studied Torah in London, Brooklyn and Sydney. Completed a graduate Diploma in Education at the University of New England.